What were the major characteristics
of each type of history: mythopoetic and Greek? How were they alike? Different?
What were the major characteristics of Christian historiography in its
beginning and throughout the Renaissance and Early Modern Period? Explain the
contributions of one major Christian historian during this time. How did the
Scientific Revolution change the writing of history?
Mythopoetic history, sometimes called
mythopoetic narrative, is a history surrounded in mystery. This type of
historical narrative uses written or oral poems, songs, and stories that have
been handed down for generations to relay a message, be it historical,
religious, or other. These stories often feature supernatural entities like
gods, heroes, or celestial beings. However they can also feature ordinary
humans, perhaps political figures or other interesting or important people in
history. There are three primary features of mythopoetic narratives; a mythical
view of space and time, a belief in the eternal recurrence of ‘cycles’ of
events, and the absence of any notion of the historic capacity of man to
fashion what we call ‘progress’.[1]History and Historians, a book by Mark
T. Gilderhus, states, “that although definitions and points of emphasis have
changed overtime, written narratives have always centered on human affairs and
purportedly set forth truths.”[2]
The
transition from mythopoetic narratives to a more methodical and objective
history began somewhere in the sixth-century B.C.E.[3] Famous
Greek thinkers like Socrates and Aristotle no longer accepted societies traditional
methodologies regarding historical thinking. They began to branch out using
their own techniques involving a more scientific approach to history. Two of
the most famous Greek historians who amplified an already expanding new idea of
how history was analyzed and documented were Herodotus and Thucydides. This duo
of early historians added two integral components to modern day historical
thinking: asking not only what and where but also why as well as collecting observable evidence to establish a
factual account of the past.[4]
The
main difference between the two types of history boils down to a good story
with some truths (Mythopoetic) and a history of accountability (New Greek
thought). As historical thinking grew, researchers needed evidence of events,
people, and accounts to really understand history. However, there are as there
always will be, skeptics. These skeptics, among them the philosopher Aristotle,
criticized historians like Herodotus and Thucydides for “merely reciting facts”[5]
There was also thought that since every person was born with a unique perspective
on life that history would never be the same for anyone therefore an account of
the past could be different for every person involved therefore no “one truth” could ever be identified. [6]
As
Christianity flourished in the Roman Empire, history began to evolve to meet
the needs of the new larger quantities of Christians and Christian historians
and teachers (Evolution does not necessarily mean progression, it constitutes a
change). Christians used history as means to, “convert new followers and
instruct fellow Christians…but also to defend Christianity from its enemies.”[7]
When the Roman Empire collapsed (somewhere around 1450) it had a direct effect
on the spread of Christianity because as the Romans spread they brought
Christian teachings with them, and if they were no longer spreading, then the
Christian word was no longer spreading. The Renaissance sparked a new
rejuvenation in learning math, science, history, art, and literature. As these
ideas spread a sense of personal enlightenment to the masses, historical
inquiry began delving back into a more scientific study of the past. As
Hoefferle states in The Essential
Historiography Reader, “Spawned by the Renaissance, the Protestant
Reformation of the sixteenth century and the Scientific Revolution of the
seventeenth century undermined the Roman Catholic Church’s control of knowledge
in Europe even further, allowing all scholars, including historians, to become
more critical of the orthodox Christian worldview which had dominated the
region for centuries.”[8] Rather than focusing on the supernatural,
history once again became about people. There were many Christians who advanced
the historical Christian thinking but Eusebius is widely considered to be the
father of Christian history. His historical writing used sources and documents to
add credibility to his research but was obviously biased and in favor of making
Christianity the religious leader of the world.
After
the times of the scientific revolution and the enlightenment historians looked
at history with an open mind, they began to look for new ways and new
perspectives to analyze and understand it. Giambattista Vico was a historian
that changed the way some people viewed history. He understood that the past
was different from the present. For example, when you view historical documents
from the past, you need to first understand what it was like during that time
to better and fully understand the document. Vico separated history into a
three part cyclical timeline, “the age of the gods and giants, the age of heroes,
and the age of men.”[9]
Some historians argue that Vico was, “the first to write a theory of history
based on abstract principles and…was the first true philosopher of history.”[10]
Work Cited:
Gilderhus,
Mark T. History
and Historians: A Historiographical Introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010.
Hoefferle,
Caroline. The Essential Historiography
Reader. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment